Client Alerts & Insights
EEO-1 Pay Data Collection Suspended Indefinitely
September 5, 2017
Employers can breathe a sigh of relief. On August 29, 2017, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s (EEOC) Acting Chair announced that the Office of Budget Management (OBM), per its authority under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PDA), had immediately stayed the EEOC’s pay data collection components of its EEO-1 Report, also known as the “Employer Information Report,” that was to otherwise become effective on the next filing deadline of March 31, 2018.
Covered employers—those with at least 100 employees or federal government contractors with at least 50 employees—have long had to file the EEO-1 Report annually. The Report requires covered employers to divulge their employees’ race, ethnicity, and gender demographics by job category. Last September 29, 2016, in line with its current strategic plan’s focus on pay equity, the EEOC revised the Report to also require employee compensation and hours worked.
The business community had criticized the pay reporting requirements since their inception. Critics argued that the new requirements carry high compliance costs and burdens; cause privacy concerns, as the EEOC has not explained how the data can be used; and are ineffective in explaining perceived pay inequities, as employers have nowhere on the Form to explain legitimate reasons for apparent inequities. Also, as the OBM’s announcement pointed out, the EEOC deprived the public of its opportunity to weigh in on pay data’s required data collection methods because the Federal Register notice never included such methods.
The EEOC is expected to provide more information on what to expect going forward. Covered employers and federal contractors should assume, for the time being, that this stay does not relieve them of timely annual submission of the EEO-1 Report’s other data categories. This stay also does not alter the fact that the EEOC has expressed its strategic focus on pay inequities and will continue to pursue litigation, including the multiple Equal Pay Act lawsuits it has filed this year. Employers also should ensure that any pay differentiations amongst job categories are explainable with legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons.
For more information on this topic, please contact a member of Benesch’s Labor and Employment Practice Group.
Eric Baisden | ebaisden@beneschlaw.com | 216.363.4676
Johanna Fabrizio Parker | jparker@beneschlaw.com | 216.363.4585
Peter Kirsanow | pkirsanow@beneschlaw.com | 216.363.4481
Latest News
Owner-Operators and Federal Leasing Regulation Compliance: Legal Q&A
Key Takeaways: The longstanding practice of many motor carriers operating through independent contractor owner-operators remains today despite the many legal …
Group Defamation Claims and the Evolving Limits of the Group Libel Doctrine
Courts are increasingly willing to look beyond the traditional small-group requirement when assessing whether an allegedly defamatory statement is “of and concerning” a particular plaintiff. Recent decisions suggest that audience perception and real-world impact may matter as much as group size.
HRSA’s Revised 340B Rebate Pilot Drama
The Health Resources and Services Administration’s revised 340B Rebate Model Pilot would replace up-front discounts with post-purchase rebates for 21 drugs beginning January 1, 2027, requiring covered entities to pay full wholesale acquisition cost and submit claims data to recover the 340B discount.
Restrictions on Foreign Interests in the Transportation and Logistics Sector: A Look Ahead
The transportation and logistics industry is not immune from rising concerns about foreign investment. Since the start of this Administration, the U.S. Department of Transportation has steadily turned focus to perceived threats against both public safety and purely domestic operators by non-U.S. interests in the sector.